WCBSTV.com: Undercover Cat Helps Bust Fake Vet In Brooklyn
posted by decemberx 9:25 AM[edit]
IanCurtis.org - Ian Curtis and Joy Division Fans Club
posted by decemberx 5:17 PM[edit]
Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion | csmonitor.com and Monkey Man the Moron will ride off into the sunset in 3 years, and leave us to clean up his mess.
posted by decemberx 5:02 PM[edit]
kittenwar.com fuzzy butts everywhere!
Cats in Sinks just what it says....
Daily Kitten too much cuteness!
posted by decemberx 1:05 PM[edit]
No Kidding! A social club for childfree singles and couples
posted by decemberx 11:19 AM[edit]
childfree.net|the childfree-by-choice pages
posted by decemberx 11:14 AM[edit]
AlterNet: Oh (No) Baby I prefer my cats, thank you...
posted by decemberx 11:04 AM[edit]
Spawn all you want, the rest of us will pay for it....
Omaha.com:
Published Sunday
February 5, 2006
Lawmakers target 'family cap'
BY MARTHA STODDARD
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN - State Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha has 760 arguments against a state policy capping benefits for families that have more children after going on welfare.
That's the number of children who would be directly helped, he says, by his proposal to eliminate the state's 12-year-old 'family cap' policy.
It's a proposal that brings together people concerned about the welfare of low-income Nebraskans and those concerned that the policy may encourage abortions.
'I see it as a matter of social justice. I don't think we should penalize the child for something the child didn't do,' said State Sen. Mike Foley of Lincoln, a co-sponsor of the bill.
'Also, I'm concerned that under existing policy . . . a woman may be more inclined to have an abortion, and that is indeed bad policy.'
Legislative Bill 944, the family cap bill, is one of two measures under consideration by the Health and Human Services Committee that would restore aid to low-income Nebraskans. The other would reverse cuts in child-care subsidies made in 2002.
Synowiecki's bill is the first effort to eliminate the family cap in more than a decade.
The policy was approved in 1994 as part of Nebraska's welfare reform. Backers said it would promote responsibility among parents on welfare and discourage them from having more children.
Similar arguments convinced 21 other states to adopt family caps in the mid-1990s. Two, Illinois and Maryland, have since repealed the caps.
The Nebraska Supreme Court narrowed the reach of Nebraska's family cap in 2003, when it ruled that the cap did not apply to disabled parents who can't work because of physical, mental or intellectual limitations.
Since then, several studies have shown that family caps don't accomplish what backers had hoped and may have some troubling results.
Research by the National Bureau of Economic Research and others show that birth rates among welfare recipients didn't drop significantly in states with caps.
On the other hand, a national study by the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research found a link between family caps and increases in children being placed in out-of-home care.
A study by researchers from Rutgers and Princeton suggested that abortion rates increased after New Jersey instituted its family cap. Other studies have found no effect on abortions.
In 2001, the General Accounting Office, the research arm of Congress, concluded: "Because of limitations of the existing research, GAO cannot conclude that family cap policies reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births, affect the number of abortions, or change the size of the (welfare) caseload."
Nebraska has not done a study of whether the family cap affected birth or abortion rates.
However, the number of abortions reported to the state increased 7 percent in 1996, the year after the family cap went into place, breaking a five-year decline.
The reason for the increase is unknown. Abortions have declined since then, with 2004 seeing the lowest number in 20 years.
Still, the possibility that economic pressure could encourage abortion was one reason, Synowiecki said, that he agreed to introduce the bill when the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest proposed it to him.
The other was his concern about the number of children born into families that are already struggling and now have to feed an extra mouth without additional help.
"It's really just to improve the standard of living for the most vulnerable poor children," Synowiecki said. "It just seems unfair to have families live in severe poverty when they choose to have a baby."
Jim Cunningham, a lobbyist for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, made similar arguments when the family cap was passed in 1994.
He said recently that the policy pushes families deeper into poverty by forcing them to stretch their resources over additional children.
"This is harsh and punitive and hits the innocent victims," Cunningham said. "It was a bad idea when it was passed and it's still a bad idea."
State records show that 760 children currently are denied benefits because they were born 10 months or more after their parents went on welfare. In December, 21,623 children in Nebraska were receiving Aid to Dependent Children benefits.
If LB 944 passes, it would mean that families of the 760 children would get a $71 boost in their monthly benefits for each of those children. Legislative fiscal staff estimate the change would cost the state $583,000 a year, once child support or other payments that reduce benefits to families are taken into account.
The Nebraska Health and Human Services System has taken no position on the bill, said spokeswoman Kathie Osterman. Gov. Dave Heineman's office also offered no comment.
Becky Gould, an attorney with the Appleseed Center, said Nebraska needs to look at whether the family cap policy serves the state well.
"Now that the financial state of the state has turned around, it is time to revisit some of the decisions that were made earlier," she said.
Why should people be rewarded for being irresponsible? That Foley f*ck is a total joke... he's a shiny-eyed religious freak, one of those people who pretend to care about the poor when it comes to abortion, but who doesn't give a f*ck once the child is born... I'm sure he voted for the child-care subsidy cuts... typically hypo"Christian" republif*ck. All the anti-abortion people should have to adopt all those kids... just like people who are against the death penalty should have to "adopt" a death-row inmate so the rest of us don't have to pay for their free ride... I should have been totally irresponsible and popped out a few illegitimate kids... I'd have a free ride now, sitting on my ass in my government housing...
posted by decemberx 12:59 PM[edit]
Tugboat Gallery - An Alternative Downtown Lincoln Art Gallery
posted by decemberx 9:34 AM[edit]
DUNGEON PARTIES scary people part II (see scary freak woman from last week)
posted by decemberx 10:06 AM[edit]
02/11/2001 - 02/18/2001 02/18/2001 - 02/25/2001 02/25/2001 - 03/04/2001 06/17/2001 - 06/24/2001 09/30/2001 - 10/07/2001 10/14/2001 - 10/21/2001 01/20/2002 - 01/27/2002 10/06/2002 - 10/13/2002 10/12/2003 - 10/19/2003 10/26/2003 - 11/02/2003 02/15/2004 - 02/22/2004 04/04/2004 - 04/11/2004 10/03/2004 - 10/10/2004 10/10/2004 - 10/17/2004 10/17/2004 - 10/24/2004 10/24/2004 - 10/31/2004 10/31/2004 - 11/07/2004 11/07/2004 - 11/14/2004 11/14/2004 - 11/21/2004 11/21/2004 - 11/28/2004 11/28/2004 - 12/05/2004 12/05/2004 - 12/12/2004 12/12/2004 - 12/19/2004 12/19/2004 - 12/26/2004 12/26/2004 - 01/02/2005 01/02/2005 - 01/09/2005 01/09/2005 - 01/16/2005 01/16/2005 - 01/23/2005 01/23/2005 - 01/30/2005 01/30/2005 - 02/06/2005 02/06/2005 - 02/13/2005 02/13/2005 - 02/20/2005 02/20/2005 - 02/27/2005 02/27/2005 - 03/06/2005 03/06/2005 - 03/13/2005 03/13/2005 - 03/20/2005 03/20/2005 - 03/27/2005 04/17/2005 - 04/24/2005 04/24/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 05/08/2005 05/08/2005 - 05/15/2005 05/15/2005 - 05/22/2005 05/22/2005 - 05/29/2005 06/05/2005 - 06/12/2005 06/12/2005 - 06/19/2005 06/19/2005 - 06/26/2005 06/26/2005 - 07/03/2005 07/03/2005 - 07/10/2005 07/10/2005 - 07/17/2005 07/17/2005 - 07/24/2005 07/24/2005 - 07/31/2005 07/31/2005 - 08/07/2005 08/07/2005 - 08/14/2005 08/14/2005 - 08/21/2005 09/04/2005 - 09/11/2005 09/11/2005 - 09/18/2005 09/18/2005 - 09/25/2005 09/25/2005 - 10/02/2005 10/02/2005 - 10/09/2005 10/09/2005 - 10/16/2005 10/16/2005 - 10/23/2005 10/30/2005 - 11/06/2005 11/06/2005 - 11/13/2005 11/13/2005 - 11/20/2005 12/04/2005 - 12/11/2005 12/11/2005 - 12/18/2005 01/15/2006 - 01/22/2006 01/22/2006 - 01/29/2006 01/29/2006 - 02/05/2006 02/05/2006 - 02/12/2006 02/12/2006 - 02/19/2006 02/19/2006 - 02/26/2006 02/26/2006 - 03/05/2006 03/05/2006 - 03/12/2006 03/12/2006 - 03/19/2006 03/19/2006 - 03/26/2006 03/26/2006 - 04/02/2006 04/02/2006 - 04/09/2006 04/09/2006 - 04/16/2006 04/16/2006 - 04/23/2006 04/30/2006 - 05/07/2006 08/13/2006 - 08/20/2006 08/20/2006 - 08/27/2006 09/03/2006 - 09/10/2006 09/24/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/15/2006 - 10/22/2006 02/11/2007 - 02/18/2007 02/18/2007 - 02/25/2007 02/25/2007 - 03/04/2007 03/11/2007 - 03/18/2007 06/15/2008 - 06/22/2008 06/22/2008 - 06/29/2008 07/13/2008 - 07/20/2008 08/03/2008 - 08/10/2008 04/19/2009 - 04/26/2009 03/14/2010 - 03/21/2010 07/15/2012 - 07/22/2012 11/24/2013 - 12/01/2013 05/31/2015 - 06/07/2015